ERASMUS +
2017-02-06
EMREX Quality Assurance Audit 2017
Page 1 of 6
Revision history
Rev
0.1
Date
2017-01-29
Author
Reijo Soréus
0.2
2017-02-15
Reijo Soréus
Approved
Comments
First draft for internal review
Third draft for internal review
EMREX Quality Assurance Audit 2017
Table of Contents
Revision history ................................................................................................................... 1
EMREX Quality Assurance Audit 2017 .............................................................................. 1
General conclusions ............................................................................................................. 2
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2
Background an purpose.......................................................................................................... 2
Method ................................................................................................................................... 3
Findings................................................................................................................................ 3
Roles, responsibilities and resources including contingency planning for key staffers ........ 3
Planned activities, their goals and time plans ........................................................................ 3
Monitoring and reporting of progress .................................................................................... 4
Quality indicators and procedures for assessment ................................................................. 4
Risk analysis, monitoring and reduction activities ................................................................ 5
How stakeholder acceptance has been ensured ..................................................................... 5
The EU ERASMUS office ................................................................................................. 5
Ministeries.......................................................................................................................... 5
Universities ........................................................................................................................ 5
Students .............................................................................................................................. 5
Other organisations ............................................................................................................ 6
Internal stakeholders .......................................................................................................... 6
ERASMUS +
2017-02-06
EMREX Quality Assurance Audit 2017
Page 2 of 6
1. General conclusions
The project is on time so far and there is nothing indication that we will not be meeting
our obligations to the stakeholders.
All partners have a clear view of what the expectations are from the stakeholders and how
to meet them during this last year of the project.
We have at least three participating countries in the field trial and the number of students
using the system will be sufficient for demonstrating that the solution works.
Denmark and Italy joins the field trial later than planned resulting in a lower resulting
quality than what could had been the case but as stated above there is no reason to expect
anything but an acceptable result of the field trial. There is always room for improvement.
From a project quality perspective, our main risk lies in slow responses within the project.
Difficult data acquisition from partners, feedback on document drafts and a too frequent
need of reminders indicates that other activities takes priority locally. We are most
productive during workshops with physical presence, but these comes at a high cost.
During 2017, we will be finishing the ELMO 2.0 as well as producing the critical reports
of the project why it is essential that we improve our internal communication.
2. Introduction
Background an purpose
According to the EMREX Project Plan, the purpose of the QA function is to assure the
quality of the processes and procedures used to manage and develop the project
deliverables.
The project annual audits focus on how we define, understand and administer the project
goals, activities and deliverables. We interview work package (WP) leads and
development leaders for each partner in order to ensure that the project is in control.
The audit is as much a supporting activity as a controlling one.
According to the Project Quality Plan there are three kinds of audits/reviews planned
annually.



Project Audits
Project Reviews
Quality Audits
The overlap between these three kinds of audits/reviews is of such a kind that we decided
to do a mix of all three at once. We also realised that interviews with all involved partners
was necessary in order to review WP3 properly.
ERASMUS +
2017-02-06
EMREX Quality Assurance Audit 2017
Page 3 of 6
Method
We, the Project Manager and the Quality Manager, have interviewed partners at the
partner’s home offices with the exception of the Swedish partner who we interviewed in
Stockholm.
The audit aimed in accordance with the quality plan to cover:






Roles, responsibilities and resources including contingency planning for key staffers
Planned activities, their goals and time plans
Monitoring and reporting of progress
Quality indicators and procedures for assessment
Risk analysis, monitoring and reduction activities
How stakeholder acceptance has been ensured
We covered all work packages except WP2 in the audit. Work Package 2 has not been
active during 2016 and will not be so in 2017.
3. Findings
Roles, responsibilities and resources including contingency planning for
key staffers
The project is generally sufficiently staffed but with strong dependencies on individuals
and with little contingency planning. All partners would probably be able to find
replacements for the key staffers if necessary but it would take time, which would risk
stopping up the project temporarily. We would still probably meet our undertakings but
quality could suffer.
The main effort in the spring of 2017 will be on the field trial why it is that WP4 staffing
is critical. At the New Year WP4 lost two resources and gained one who is co-located
with the WP lead. This might have consequences in the spring.
There is also some risk in WP7 in the autumn, as the WP lead will be involved in a new
project. This in parallel with increased workload in WP7 might become a bottleneck.
All staffers are working part time in the project, which also results in risks for other
activities taking priority over EMREX. This is probably one reason to the sometimesslow response in internal communications.
Planned activities, their goals and time plans
The main outcomes of the project is twofold; the evaluation of EMREX and the
functioning exchange network (outcome of the dissemination and scaling up). The
ERASMUS +
2017-02-06
EMREX Quality Assurance Audit 2017
Page 4 of 6
evaluation depends on the Field Trial, which in turn depends on the EMREX nodes set up
by WP3.
The Field Trial will continue longer than initially planned which in turn delays the
evaluation report. This will not be a problem for the project as such; we have enough
margins in the autumn for producing the final report.
The exchange network will need more focus in the autumn. We need to define the
deliverables, the international steering group, as well as plan the activities to achieve one.
The need of the future organization depends on whether there is an EMREX 2 project or
not though.
There is also quite some work left in order to ensure a functioning, secure EMREX
network. Examples of remaining activities includes:





Production of documentation
Early student account recalling needs to be sorted out or another solution found
ELMO 2.0 definition
Data glossary production
Deciding on the future ownership of EMREG
All WP’s need to update the project wiki with remaining activities and deliverables, an
effort that the WP leads ensured directly after each review.
Monitoring and reporting of progress
Generally, we can all be better at updating the activity plans and the deliverables list on
the project wiki. Some of our deliveries needs to be broken down to a level that enables
follow-up during the year. “Mini milestones”
Every work package has set up an activity plan in their own way, which reduces project
transparency. There is not much to be gained on redoing all plans this late in the project
but it should be something to bring into the following project, if there is one.
Quality indicators and procedures for assessment
The collection of reliable data regarding the student exchange, the potential number of
users of EMREX, has been harder than expected. We miss internal deadlines and
delivered data is not always consistent between the partner countries.
Quality assessments within the project relies on partner feedback and acceptance is
assumed in lack of objections. This is not a recommendable method for the evaluation
report and the final report, an active acceptance is better.
Our recommendation to all partners is to improve the responsiveness within the project.
ERASMUS +
2017-02-06
EMREX Quality Assurance Audit 2017
Page 5 of 6
Risk analysis, monitoring and reduction activities
According to the application, we have promised a field trial “between three to four Nordic
countries and Italy”. With the existing set-up, we do fulfil this even if by a slight stretch.
Main risks now are primarily related to the evaluation quality:


Not enough students in the field trial
Not good enough background data for comparisons
There are also risks related to the handover to a permanent organization for maintaining
the EMREX network.
How stakeholder acceptance has been ensured
The EU ERASMUS office




The larger student mobility digitalization group wants to see a successful solution, interested
in the working solution
o The project will deliver a functioning credits transfer solution
The national Erasmus offices want a smoother mobility
o EMREX will make the transfer of credits smoother
We are invited to diverse meetings in Brussels with the Erasmus network where we get a lot
of positive feedback
o We can only interpret this as an approval
Erasmus Without Papers wants to see an EMREX solution in alignment with their project
o We are aligning ourselves through the parallel participation of members in both
projects as well as through direct communication with each other
Ministeries

Our forum for communication with the ministeries and where we get their feedback is the
steering group
Universities


We meet the administrators (IRO’s and others) at the Stakeholder forum as well as through
national contacts (WP3 and 4)
IT functions meetings through the national networks regarding admin systems, processes for
student accounts etc.
Students

We get feedback through the surveys in the Field study
ERASMUS +
2017-02-06
EMREX Quality Assurance Audit 2017
Page 6 of 6
Other organisations


Groningen Declaration are interested in our solution and they can help us in continuing in
EMREX 2
New prospective user organizations are supported by WP3 and direct communication with
the project group
Internal stakeholders

The project group meetings is our internal stakeholder forum
o Direct communication between WP:s is ensured at the project group as well as
through that most of the partners participate in most of the WP:s